Slashdot Mirror


Moon Express Signs Launch Contract For Possible First Private Lunar Landing

MarkWhittington writes: According to a story in Space.com, Moon Express, one of the leading contestants in the Google Lunar X Prize competition, has made a giant leap toward its goal of being the first private group to land on the moon. The company has signed a contract with Rocket Lab, a new launch company based in New Zealand, for five launches of its upcoming Electron rocket. The first two launches will take place in 2017 and will be attempts to land the MX-1 lander on the lunar surface in time to win the prize by the current deadline by the end of that year.

73 comments

  1. The first two launches will take place in 2017 by Nutria · · Score: 2

    No, they won't.

    Why? Because first launches *never* happen on time...

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

      I dunno... Bob Richards has been in the Space biz for a long time, and probably has a good eye for TRL's. But even if Rocket Lab isn't ready by 2017, MoonEx might be able to find an alternate launch provider. Remember, there's a fairly good chance that SpaceX could turn the entire launch market upside-down in a few weeks, if/when (fingers crossed) they "stick the landing" on their next F9 launch. In any case, I don't think MoonEx's chances of winning the GLXP will be limited by Rocket Lab's schedule, there are other options available.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I question the electric turbopumps. In many ways it makes building the rocket much simpler but the performance hit will be brutal.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Because first launches *never* happen on time...

      They'll launch on time. For manned missions, you need six nines (99.9999%) reliability. But this is an unmanned mission, so even 99% is "good enough", especially when a delay will mean forfeiting the $20M X-Prize.

    4. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      For manned missions, you need six nines (99.9999%) reliability.

      That'll be why the space shuttle broke up and killed its crew about 1.5% of the time.

    5. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I question the electric turbopumps. In many ways it makes building the rocket much simpler but the performance hit will be brutal.

      For many uses, performance doesn't matter, except to the extent that it increases costs. Fuel is cheap, fuel tanks are relatively cheap, rocket engines are expensive.... so reducing the cost of the engines can easily compensate for having to burn more fuel.

    6. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't challenge the simple minded, especially prominent trolls like him. They get a few buzzwords in 'em and a self-righteous sense of superiority; it's all over.

    7. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, it would be why they finally retired the space shuttle, yes.

      Prior to Challenger they had a 100% safety rating, and prior to Columbia the single instance of failure wan't enough to extrapolate a trend. Also orbiters not named with a capital "C" still have a 100% safety rating.

    8. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by paiute · · Score: 1

      For manned missions, you need six nines (99.9999%) reliability.

      That'll be why the space shuttle broke up and killed its crew about 1.5% of the time.

      That's 99.9999% reliability for each component times a million components.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    9. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The more fuel you burn the more you have to lift the more you have to lift the more you have to burn......

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The more fuel you burn the more you have to lift the more you have to lift the more you have to burn......

      You didn't even read my post, did you?

      Let me repeat:

      Fuel is cheap. Fuel tanks are cheap.
      Engines are expensive.
      Trading cheaper engines for more fuel can save $$$$$.

      Get it now?

    11. Re: The first two launches will take place in 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The launches will take place in 2017, for some as-yet unknown value for 2017.

    12. Re: The first two launches will take place in 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The launches will take place in 2017, for some as-yet unknown value for 2017.

      and some as-yet known value of not zero, therefore 2017 so, yes...it's Friday.

    13. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No you do not get it it.
      The more weight they more fuel you have to carry which is more weight. To life more weight you must add more thrust which means more engines which means more weight and more fuel.
      You can not just keep adding more tanks and fuel you must then add more engines because it takes more thrust to lift the fuel and tanks which means you burn more fuel and need more tanks and so and so on.
      In the end you will have a Saturn V that puts 200Kg in LEO.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more weight they more fuel you have to carry which is more weight. To life more weight you must add more thrust which means more engines which means more weight and more fuel.

      Virgin Galactic took the X Prize not by building an orbital-capable vehicle and launching it suborbitally (a'la Mercury), but by building a vehicle that was capable only of a suborbital hop (a'la it's a very fancy airplane that, if magically teleported into orbit at orbital speeds, wouldn't make it back.)

      It's conceivable that SpaceIL and RocketLab are going for the same approach: Cheapest possible engine, lightest possible payload, and trading off payload weight for this particular mission. If your goal is to build a Mars colony, you can't make that tradeoff. If your goal is to put something - anything - on the Moon in one piece, as a technology demonstrator, maybe that tradeoff works.

    15. Re:The first two launches will take place in 2017 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "If your goal is to put something - anything - on the Moon in one piece, as a technology demonstrator, maybe that tradeoff works."
      Maybe but I find the idea of electrically powering the turbo pumps of the engine as very questionable vs classic turbo pumps.
      I wonder if they are using thermal batteries?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. NZ? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    "launch company based in New Zealand,"

    Isn't New Zealand a bit far south to be taking advantage of the spin of the earth for launching rockets?

    At least for the moon you want to be closer to the equator I thought

    1. Re:NZ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      It's the lack of spin there that actually helps. The rocket basically "falls" into space in such a region, and it isn't as affected by the rotation of the earth and its gravitational forces. The ideal place to launch rockets from would be the rotational poles, since there's effectively no rotation there. The only problem is that these locations are inhospitable and difficult to reach, even with modern technology. New Zealand proves to offer a good balance because it's closer to the south pole than it is to the inefficient zone between the poles and the equator.

    2. Re:NZ? by fisted · · Score: 2

      ....what? "falls" into space? You need to reach escape velocity (the direction of which interestingly doesn't matter). At the poles, you have to do it all by yourself, on the equator you only need to add sufficient speed to what you're already getting due to Earth's rotation.

    3. Re: NZ? by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      that sounds wrong. If you were at the poles you would be basically taking off sideways. It's way more efficient to orbit the earth a few times and catch the moon. It's way more efficient to start on the equator to get into orbit.

    4. Re:NZ? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But New Zealand is on the underside of the Earth, so they have to use magnets to hold themselves to the ground. You just remove the magnets from the rocket, and it falls out into space.

    5. Re:NZ? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      ....what? "falls" into space?

      Yes. Try this simple experiment: Put a globe on your desk. Hold a coin or other dense object against the south pole with your finger. Now let go. What happens? I falls *away* from the globe. That doesn't happen in the northern hemisphere, unless you flip the globe over, and there is no way to flip the entire earth. Of course, the south pole is the ideal launch point, but it is cold and logistically difficult. So New Zealand is about as good as you are going to get.

      You need to reach escape velocity

      Yes, of course. But you need to learn to use gravity instead of fighting it. We already do this with gravity assist off other planets, so there is no reason we can't do it with the earth as well.

    6. Re:NZ? by fisted · · Score: 1

      Well, good point. I stand corrected.

    7. Re:NZ? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      ....what? "falls" into space?

      I know; I actually winced when I read that.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    8. Re:NZ? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Actually, when I hold the coin in the northern hemisphere it simply slides down and falls off from around the equator. All we need to do for northern launches is allow the rocket to slide along the ocean first and cushion it against the forces involved, which shouldn't be too hard since even a coin manages the trip without damage.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    9. Re:NZ? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      I always assumed they were just held down by use of their Kiwi magic.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    10. Re:NZ? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Insightful? Seriously?

      I'm having trouble deciding whether this is ironic or tragic (or meta-ironic?)... Guess I'll have to settle for meta-tragic.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    11. Re:NZ? by fisted · · Score: 1

      You could also practice recognizing obvious jokes.

    12. Re:NZ? by jittles · · Score: 1

      ....what? "falls" into space? You need to reach escape velocity (the direction of which interestingly doesn't matter). At the poles, you have to do it all by yourself, on the equator you only need to add sufficient speed to what you're already getting due to Earth's rotation.

      The earth's rotation helps you enter an orbit, it does not help you escape the Earth's sphere of influence.

    13. Re:NZ? by fisted · · Score: 1

      Please be kidding.

    14. Re:NZ? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Or moderators could practice modding jokes as "Funny" instead of "Insightful".

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    15. Re:NZ? by fisted · · Score: 1

      It being modded insightful was the joke that went over your head...

    16. Re:NZ? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      No, it was my comment that it was "meta-tragic" that went over YOUR head.

      Nyah-nyah-nyah! ;-)

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    17. Re:NZ? by jittles · · Score: 1

      Maybe I think that centripetal force is just as fake as AGW? Maybe I am sick and was tired and was not thinking properly? Maybe I was just trolling? Or perhaps it was a combination of all of the above? Who can possibly know? The safest guess is the second option, though. Thanks for pointing out my folly to me.

  3. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations are people so we can't not allow them to do this. As The movie Avatar proved, Repu li and will destroy anything for profit.

  4. Free Hasselblad for the first few visitors! by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

    Maybe they're planning to collect?

  5. Re:Landing on the moon is for cows by kheldan · · Score: 0

    Hey diddle diddle,
    The Electron and the fiddle,
    The space-cow jumped over the moon.
    Space-X laughed,
    To see such sport,
    And NASA ran away with the spoon.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  6. Nope by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    This will NOT happen. As well, it will be many many many years before man sets foot on Mars (lack of compelling reasons, money, technology...)

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  7. Re: Let me see if I understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they didn't use guns then no one would ever pay their taxes. They must, and do, use guns. It sucks that our only choice is to support corporate welfare or get shot.

  8. Re:Great, so corporations are going to destroy the by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Uhhhh.. but, there's nothing there to 'destroy'? It's a dead, airless dustball. It's not even geologically active. It's literally there for us to do whatever we want to with it. So long as nobody screws with it's orbit around the Earth, it's all good.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  9. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nixon ordered people to leave trash on the moon while he was the ruler of the US. The Tepublicans will just continue more of that.

  10. Re:Let me see if I understand by TWX · · Score: 2

    The mighty private innovators and job creators took 60 years to just try to *imitate* what government did over half a century ago, and that's only because the innovators copy what was done before??

    All glory capitalism! Boo to socialism!

    The Federal Government only funded the project. Douglas, Boeing, Chrysler, North American, and many other companies actually did the development and manufacturing.

    The biggest difference between then and now is that back then, the government was willing to spend just about anything that it cost to make it happen, and had the purse to do so. Now, non-government entities, be they public companies, private companies, nonprofits, whatever, do not have the financial resources of the Federal Government, so they're trying to scale what we previously did fast an expensively to something that's not as fast to develop, but is a lot more affordable.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  11. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Hollywood movie is proof to you? Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  12. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy th by kheldan · · Score: 1

    So what? It's an airless, lifeless dustball. There's no 'environment' to protect. Also, anything left behind was left behind because it would require fuel to return it all to Earth, and that just wouldn't have made any sense.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  13. "Affordable" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the space.com article "Electron is quite an affordable option as far as orbital launches are concerned, with each liftoff costing just $4.9 million. Falcon 9 launches, for example, cost about $60 million each."

    It may be affordable if you ONLY want to launch a small craft on its own, but on a pound per pound basis it really isn't. If I'm getting my math right here its almost $15k per pound for one of these launches, compared to about $5.6 per pound on Falcon. It would be as much as a third of the cost if a bunch of small sat launches got together and bought a single Falcon, or piggybacked on a larger satellite launch that didn't max out its launch capabilities.

  14. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're fine with the Republicans continuing their plan to spew loads of garbage to the moon?

  15. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you support Nixon. Got it.

  16. I doubt it by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll be shocked and astounded if this actually ever takes place.

    A Moon shot is a hell of trick to pull off, even getting into orbit is beyond the capability of most countries, let alone transit to the Moon.

    Space travel is hard; it's expensive, it's complex, and space is probably the most unforgiving environment imaginable.

    Color me skeptical; I don't think this is going to happen via private industry for another 20 to 50 years at the very least.

    I'd be overjoyed to be wrong, though! :)

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:I doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute. We did this in the 70's. A moonshot is not hard. We have the technology now, in fact, we have BETTER technology. What's hard is convincing a government that a moonshot is worth doing, because it is VERY expensive and doesn't 'seem' to provide any real benefit to a capitalistic society (we went to the moon for politics, we had to beat the russians there, and once we realized that the russians were NEVER going to make it there, the program was cancelled, since we no longer needed to maintain a presence on the moon to prevent it from going red).

    2. Re:I doubt it by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Color me skeptical; I don't think this is going to happen via private industry for another 20 to 50 years at the very least.

      A moon shot is only marginally more difficult if at all than a GEO satellite. Or for that matter a Mars shot, it's just a slightly longer rocket burn. The difficult part is what the fsck do you do when you're in orbit, it's the descent/landing that is challenging. That SpaceX can land rockets is obviously to save costs here on Earth but it's also to fill a major gap in our capability to go to Mars. I don't think a dedicated lander will ever get sufficient private funding, a spin-off technology of landing rockets here on Earth just might. It's not like the private industry is 50 years behind Apollo in technology, it's that they lack a business plan for going.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re: I doubt it by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Google maps duh.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  17. Re:Let me see if I understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Douglas, Boeing, Chrysler, North American, and many other companies actually did the development and manufacturing."

    ...without the need to turn a profit. Say, could that mean something?

    "The biggest difference between then and now is that back then,"

    ...we had a well-defined monolithic enemy?

  18. Re:Let me see if I understand by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    No, 400,000 people can say they worked on something that went towards Apollo. If you worked an injection molder making the light switches in the cafeteria where engineers ate, then you can say you worked Apollo.

  19. "Moon Express"? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    That seems limited - it shows a lack of vision. They need to THINK BIG.

    I think the company should be called Planet Express. I even have some thoughts regarding what their ships might look like.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  20. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy t by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Trading Places is a documentary to some.

  21. Reviving my inner middle schooler by paiute · · Score: 1

    I feel like I am watching a real life play out of Rocket Ship Galileo sometimes.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  22. Re:Let me see if I understand by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    Corporations aren't yet allowed to go door to door with guns to take your money

    Patience. Give President Trump some time.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  23. We aught be sendin' whalers! by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    The last probe we sent spotted a whale just laying out on the surface! That's free gold for the taking if we send whalers there!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  24. Re:Great, so corporations are going to destroy the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations are only half of the problem, the other half is the general public. I swear sometimes its like a scene right out of Robot Chicken or Futurama, people complain about pollution, electric prices, gas prices etc and then crank their AC down to 68F on the hottest day of the year or replace a perfectly functional phone with the latest and greatest because they want to show it off. Maybe we can blame the companies for providing products/services without accounting for their environmental impact but if you want to see the idiots who are demanding those products at low prices I suggest most of us find a mirror. And I'd suggest thinking carefully about believing "I'm doing my part", the western world is rife with people who play at being "green" by buying expensive, useless pieces of green-washed garbage (Prius, organic vegetables, etc) that are probably doing more damage to the environment than someone driving a 30 year old vehicle while living in a home without central air.

  25. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy th by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Oh hey there AC, I found a picture of you on the Internets!
    http://bitsocialmedia.com/wp-c...
    Now please go play somewhere else, the adults are trying to have a conversation, k?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  26. Re:Great, so corporations are going to destroy the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Corporations are only half of the problem, the other half is the general public.

    But since corporations are people in the twisted, small minds of the Republicans, corporations are the general public. You need to attack the source of the problem. Just because progressives started the "corporations are people" thing so we could tax profit twice, doesn't mean that it is right. A group of people is not a person.

  27. Re:Great, so corporations are going to destroy the by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Again, corporations don't have free speech rights because "they are people". The Supreme Court ruled the people who make up the corporations maintain their free speech rights when participating in the corporation.

    In other words, Congress doesn't get to create a group of people called a "corporation", then strip The People of their free speech rights as a cost of participation.

    The money buys almost exclusively advertising, which is the "press" part of the First Amendment, the means of mass production and distribution of speech, which governments used to outlaw independent of speech directly, to control opposition to their power.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  28. Re:Great, so corporations are going to destroy the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the SCOTUS said people don't have rights, but corporations have rights. They took all of our rights. They hate us. Since they are Republican controlled now, they are doing this to us. Doing this to us.

  29. Re: Great, so corporations are going to destroy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Nixon hated the Earth.

  30. Vaporware? by shess · · Score: 1

    This would be a much more exciting posting if they were contracting with a company who had already made successful launches.

  31. Re:Great, so corporations are going to destroy the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the SCOTUS said people don't have rights, but corporations have rights. They took all of our rights. They hate us. Since they are Republican controlled now, they are doing this to us. Doing this to us.

    Weird, I didn't know that monitors could echo. Monitors could echo.

  32. What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slightly more risky than adopting an M$ OS before the first service pack?